Vaibhav vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. No.7 of 2019, under Sections 66-C, 66-D of Information and Technology Act and Section 420 of IPC, Police Station Cyber PS, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

F.I.R. in the instant case was lodged on 29.03.2019. According to it Smt. Rashmi Bardhan visited a web site WWW.PASSPORTONLINEINDIA.COM for renewal of her passport in the month of 2019 and deposited Rs.4,000/- fee as well. Soon she realized that the web site is wrong but by the time she had already shared her personal information. A suspicion was raised that perhaps the personal details may be used for some wrongful purposes; due to the forged web site some other persons might be cheated. The F.I.R. was lodged by the Personal Secretary to the husband of the first informant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that petitioner as a partner is running a web site business for providing consultancy in different areas like GST, passport etc.; they never claimed that they are working for any Ministry; their web site home page categorically reveals that it is online consultancy only; on 25.03.2019 Rashmi Bardhan applied for renewal and on 26.03.2019 she requested refund for the fees deposited by her, which was duly refunded on 27.03.2019. It is argued that perhaps the first informant also informed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, who in turn convened a meeting. The meeting was attended by the petitioner and other partners. After the meeting, the Ministry officers suggested inclusion of certain more information on the web site. Pursuant thereto, changes were incorporated by the petitioner and an affidavit of compliance was submitted in the Ministry. It is argued that petitioner never had any intention to cheat; they are into business. Reference has been made to various documents in support of the argument, which are enclosed with the petition. Petitioner apprehends that police is under pressure because husband of Rashmi Bardhman is a senior public servant and the petitioner may be arrested.

Learned AGA would submit that all the ingredients of offence are made out; with malafide intention money has been demanded therefore, no interference is warranted.

Having considered the matter, this Court is of the view that this matter requires little more deliberation.

Issue notice to respondent no.3.

Counter affidavit may be filed by the respondents within four weeks.

List thereafter.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner provided he cooperates with the investigating agency. (Interim relief application no.7535 of 2019 stands disposed of accordingly)